The first group of amendments relates to regulations being made under section 1. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 4 and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the lead amendment and to speak to it and the other amendments in the group. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 4 (Rhun ap Iorwerth) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to start this Stage 3 debate on this Bill. I will make some general comments first of all and then I will of course be moving amendment 4 formally.

We in Plaid Cymru have believed for some time in the principle of using price as a tool to seek to persuade people to drink more moderately and to give greater consideration to the risks of drinking excessively. I would say at the outset here that we believe that that should happen through taxation as a matter of principle, but as we as an institution don't currently hold those powers—I very much hope, and I'm confident, that that situation will change in future—but since we don't hold those powers at present, then we as a party have supported the principle of introducing a minimum price for alcohol for some years.

But having said that, I have approached this question, and the legislative process specifically, with my eyes as wide open as possible, in the knowledge that there are many people who have concerns and fears as to why we are seeking to do this, and whether what we are seeking to achieve through this legislation would have a real impact. We have therefore worked positively to seek ways of strengthening the legislation that was initially brought forward, and I am confident that our amendments today, as well as the other amendments that we will support, do strengthen this legislation, that they are important steps in explaining the purpose of this legislation to a public that, in large part, is suspicious of what's underpinning this legislation, and there are elements here that we believe will make the legislation more fit for purpose in the future, and will futureproof it.

Turning to amendment 4 specifically, this amendment relates to seeking consultation with pubs, or organisations representing the pub industry specifically, in relation to this legislation, and at the point where we come to re-make regulations to reintroduce this legislation when the sunset clause kicks in in some years' time. The reason we have brought this amendment forward is because we believe that there is a difference that should be noted between drinking alcohol in the context of a pub or similar institution and where that drinking happens elsewhere. Pubs have licensing conditions. Pubs, good pubs, will have well-trained staff, trained in first aid, for example, and staff who know not to sell alcohol to customers if they have overindulged. The local authority can withdraw a pub's licence if they believe that there is irresponsible drinking happening at that pub, but these pubs, which for me are important parts of our communities, and are often the gel, the glue, holding communities together, have faced unfair competition, in my view, from supermarkets and other outlets. I believe that agreeing to this amendment would be a means of rebalancing things somewhat by saying, 'Yes, a pub is different and we should listen to the views of the pub industry in considering the impact of this legislation, therefore.'

We do believe that that rebalancing is something that we can do through this amendment. We would also support the Conservative amendments because we do believe that further consultation, including the committee, would help to make this legislation more robust. It is important, as I said, to bring the public with us on public health legislation in general, and that is certainly true in this case. So, support our amendment, and we will support the Conservative amendments.

Thank you for the launch of amendment 4, and I have to say to the Plaid Cymru spokesman that your argument has actually persuaded us to shift our position on that and to support it. Initially, we were not going to because we believe that our amendment 1 is, in fact, broad enough to ensure that we encapsulate and protect public houses throughout the land. However, I think you make a very good argument that they have a specific place in our communities, a place in our society, and that, therefore, we should look to consider affording them a degree of extra protection.

That goes on to our amendment 1, Presiding Officer, which I would like to move, because this substantive amendment inserts a new section after section 1 of the Bill to provide for regulations made under section 1 to be made under a superaffirmative procedure, as recommended by the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The amendment sets out the processes that must be followed by the Welsh Government in regard to a consultation on where the minimum unit price will be set. Despite numerous requests, the Welsh Government have rejected all notions of placing the minimum unit price on the face of the Bill, and it being subject to the superaffirmative procedure. However, the level of the minimum unit price is yet to be confirmed fully by the Welsh Government and recommendation 4 of the Stage 1 report, which required the Welsh Government to issue a statement of intent that confirms its current preferred minimum unit price and the reasons for it, has not gone forward. In the response to the committee's Stage 1 report, the Welsh Government stated that proposals about the level at which the minimum unit price should be specified

'will be developed using the updated evidence base and a consideration of other, relevant factors. These factors include alcohol sales data and data about alcohol-related harm in Wales. The Welsh Ministers will look at the anticipated outcomes of different levels of MUP and make a decision which strikes a reasonable balance between the estimated important public health benefits of this measure and intervention in the market.'

I absolutely accept that commentary that the Welsh Government's Cabinet Secretary put forward during our various stages of amendment, but as Rhun ap Iorwerth said earlier, this is a bit of legislation that does cause concern with the general public. It does make people wonder what we're trying to do, what it will end up being and I think it is only right that we, as a National Assembly, should be able to say, 'Yes, we accept your arguments to have it at 50p', which is what everyone talks about, but it may not be 50p—it may be £1, it may be £1.50, it may be 30p. And I think that we have a responsibility to our electorate to be able to have that final say going forward. Therefore, this amendment seeks to solidify this commitment and ensure that due processes are followed when consulting on the proposed level of the minimum unit price. Amendment 3 is purely a consequential amendment.

UKIP will be abstaining on all the amendments in this group. In fact, we will be abstaining on all the amendments before us today, as we did in Stage 2. I thought long and hard about whether to table amendments to the Bill. I had considered tabling amendments very similar to those proposed by both Angela and Rhun, but in the end decided against because there is simply no way to improve this piece of legislation. The Bill is flawed and it's based upon flawed assumptions and poorly thought out policy objectives. 

I agree with Angela that the Government should have to widely consult before laying draft regulations. And I agree with Rhun that this Bill should not be used to increase the profits of alcohol retailers. But, unfortunately, that is precisely what will happen as a result of this piece of legislation. It is based on unsound and untested data. There is no evidence that it will do anything other than disproportionately impact on the poorest in society. Making alcohol more expensive will not stop people drinking to excess, and it is unfair to responsible drinkers. It ignores the large body of evidence that shows that there are some health benefits from responsible alcohol consumption. More than 100 studies have shown that drinking one or two units of alcohol a day can reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases by as much as 45 per cent. It ignores the growing evidence that the largest group of binge drinkers are middle-aged high earners. According to the Welsh Health Survey, 47 per cent of the least deprived in Wales drink more than the recommended amount, and 28 per cent of the least deprived are so-called binge drinkers. These people will not be deterred by modest price rises, unless the true intention of the Welsh Government is to introduce a much higher, more punitive, minimum price.

The fact that the minimum unit price is not on the face of the Bill and that the Welsh Government have not indicated what the minimum price would be is of concern. We have been working on an assumption of a 50p minimum unit price, but for all we know the Welsh Government intends to introduce a 60p, 70p or 80p minimum. This would have a devastating impact on responsible drinkers on low wages. Why should my constituents pay more because of a few irresponsible drinkers?

The Welsh Government should put these plans on hold until the assertions made by them can be demonstrated by hard evidence from Scotland's introduction of minimum pricing. They are determined to press ahead, and unfortunately we can't lessen the impact this Bill will have on ordinary people in Wales. Therefore, because of this, I have to abstain on all the amendments and urge Members to reject this Bill.

I'm rising to say that I think both these amendments are inappropriate, because we've been talking about this for quite a long time and we now need to get on with it. I've heard absolutely no evidence that the pubs will be anything other than beneficiaries of minimum pricing, simply because the organisations who are targeting people with ridiculously low alcohol prices are the supermarkets, who use them as loss leaders. The pubs in general are very responsible in saying 'no' to people who have had too much to drink, and those who don't do that can be dealt with through the licensing arrangements. 

These artificially low prices make it much easier for children to club together their pocket money and get an adult to go into a shop in order to buy alcohol, and that is why I think as a matter of urgency we need to clamp down and ensure that there is a minimum price put on alcohol so that it can't be made into something that's as cheap as sweets, which is what it is at the moment. So, I would resist both these amendments and I'll be voting against them both.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to rise to make some brief comments about the point and purpose of the legislation, before turning to the three amendments in this group. 

I start by reminding Members that this is a piece of public health legislation based on a range of evidence that all of us are aware of about our, at times, difficult relationship with alcohol across the country. We recognise the avoidable harm that alcohol can cause, and, when we discuss our public health challenges as a nation, we regularly talk about diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol. The challenge that we've set ourselves is: is this piece of legislation a useful way to generate greater public health gain or not? And we believe that it is. It is not just the view of this Government, of course; we have consulted previously on introducing a minimum unit price in Wales, once in 2014 as part of the public health White Paper, and once in 2015 when I as the then Deputy Minister led a consultation on the draft Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill.

But, equally, we recognise this is shared across parties—individual Members in this Chamber will have views on this, but also recognising that a commitment to legislate in this area has featured in the last two Plaid Cymru manifestos for the Assembly. And we're not alone within the United Kingdom, of course. Reference has already been made to Scotland, where they have already introduced a similar piece of legislation and gone through an exhaustive and expensive series of challenges by the alcohol industry to the Supreme Court and European court as well. The Supreme Court and the European court have agreed that this is a legitimate and proportionate means of addressing the public health harms caused by alcohol. More than that, today, of course, the big news in the House of Commons is that there was a Bill on minimum unit pricing for England raised by a backbencher, again citing evidence that the health select committee there has heard about the potential health gain to be made by introducing a minimum unit price. 

I reject the UKIP arguments, and there are times where you simply disagree with people and it's just easier and neater to say that we don't share the same view. We do think that dozens of deaths a year could be saved as a result of introducing this legislation. That comes from the analysis done by the University of Sheffield. We do think that this is one extra way to reduce the avoidable harm that alcohol causes and we all recognise. Equally, we believe that price matters. There's a range of evidence from around the world, not just in the Sheffield data, but in our own lives we understand that price matters in the choices that we make. 

Turning to the amendments, I recognise, in moving amendment 4, Rhun ap Iorwerth's continued interest in the pub sector—no pun intended. But I recognise also the economic and social value of pubs within different communities. I also recognise it's possible that a minimum unit price will help pubs as businesses. Indeed, the Institute of Alcohol Studies wrote to the First Minister in autumn last year stating that they believed a minimum unit price would be warmly welcomed by publicans. However, I go back to the fact that this is a public health piece of legislation, and, in asking Members to reject amendment 4, I don't believe that the specific level of detail simply about pubs is necessary. I've already given—and I repeat again the commitments I've given previously to consult on the initial level of the minimum unit price that Welsh Ministers are minded to specify. We'll consult on that initial level to provide both Assembly Members and all stakeholders, including, of course, pubs, with a further opportunity to consider and make representations in relation to that level. Of course, that will take account of the facts, as Angela Burns accurately set out, of a wide range of information, including alcohol sales data and the emerging evidence from Scotland. 

However, turning to amendments 1 and 3, I continue to believe that the level of detail proposed to make regulations under this Bill, should it be passed, is neither necessary nor desirable. We agree that we should consult with stakeholders, as I've said several times before, and it's appropriate that the minimum unit price will not be specified or amended without full consideration and an opportunity for debate in this National Assembly. And the Government continues to believe the affirmative procedure provides that opportunity. 

It is worth reminding ourselves that the procedure set out in amendment 1 would require a more or less six-month process to introduce and then change any future minimum unit price for alcohol. I do not believe that the length of time that would take is either necessary or proportionate. And, more than that, it's worth pointing out to Members that this Assembly has previously agreed, in introducing land transaction taxation, to undertake the procedure advocated by the Government today—to have an affirmative vote. I believe it would be odd to say that you can change taxation rates across Wales by an affirmative vote, but to change the minimum unit price for alcohol there must be a six-month process to undertake.

I recognise that there are differences across this Chamber, but I do ask Members to reject and not support amendments 4, 1 and 3.

Could I just intervene—

Sorry, I've finished.

We know the initial rate the Government is setting when it comes to land transaction tax, and it does seem odd to have this debate on this hugely important principle, which I broadly support, but we can't do anything to set the original rate. So, you can go high, you can go middle, you can go low. We can't say. You'll have this power immediately from regulation to do that and that does not get the full force of scrutiny in this Chamber, as you well know. 

I'll briefly respond, Presiding Officer, because, as I've said on a number of occasions, we are committed to undertaking a significant amount of consultation before setting the initial minimum unit price that Ministers will recommend and this place will have to decide whether to support or not. I believe that that is an entirely appropriate method and an entirely appropriate way to proceed, and I look forward to implementing a minimum unit price regime across Wales to make real public health gains in every single community.

I call Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate. 

Thank you very much. I will briefly comment on that final point first of all. Getting the right price is crucially important, of course. There was an attempt by the Conservatives through an earlier amendment at Stage 2 to set the price on the face of the Bill. I think that it would have been a mistake to set a specific price now, because we do need that very detailed research to find the right price. For me, it's very convenient that it's that round number, 50p. I think it may need to be a little lower than that, I'm not sure, but the pressure will be on the Government to prove to this Assembly through detailed consultation and detailed evidence gathering that the right price is set, if this Bill becomes an Act.

To respond to the other comments on the amendments, may I thank Angela Burns for indicating that she and her party will now be supporting our amendment 4? It does show the value of debate and persuasion. I regret that the Government, however, hasn't been persuaded on this issue. I do believe, however, that there's been some misinterpretation by the Member for Cardiff Central about our intentions in all of this. You said that pubs would gain through this legislation; well, that's the exact purpose of this amendment, to note in this legislation that pubs are important and that supporting pubs is important, and so pubs or the organisations representing them should have the opportunity to influence this legislation or regulations as they come forward in due time. You were arguing that we need to proceed with urgency and so this amendment should be rejected. I can't see for one moment why accepting this amendment would slow down the process. All it does is add important stakeholders to the list of people who would be consulted, and that would be done in order to make the point that those stakeholders do represent an important sector for our communities the length and breadth of Wales. So, there may have been an element of misunderstanding there.

I will make brief comments on Caroline Jones's comments for UKIP. 

You said that you fear that this will hit a particular group disproportionately. You know what? You're right. This Bill, this piece of legislation, will hit disproportionately the people who drink too much very strong high-volume alcohol and who are harming their health in the process. And it will affect disproportionately the chances that young people will start drinking high alcohol high-volume drinks in the same way that high cigarette prices are part of the weaponry in public health to try to tackle smoking amongst young people. So, we have to be realistic about who it is we are trying to help through this legislation. We are looking to create as much armoury as we can when it comes to improving the health of our nation, and this is one element.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Is there any objection? [Objection.] We will proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote on amendment 4. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, four abstaining, 29 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Amendment 4: For: 17, Against: 29, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been rejected

Angela Burns, amendment 1.

Amendment 1 (Angela Burns) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Is there any objection? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, four abstentions, 29 against. Amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 1: For: 17, Against: 29, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been rejected